[OE-core] meta-gplv2? [Was Re: parted_1.8.6.bb: add parted that not GPLv3]

[Khem Raj]

> On Aug 11, 2015, at 1:36 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11 August 2015 at 16:46, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com <mailto:raj.khem at gmail.com>> wrote:
> can we freeze this thread please.
> 
> Or more usefully, reboot it.  Philip, you're turning into Koen!  Alex, if someone on this list asks what Poky is, 99% of the time they're trolling.  :)

this ml it might be. But I interact with many folks who hear of it for first time and in general its quite confusing when you explain this to someone new. They get confused when they see yocto 1.8 and then poky 13.0, bitbake 1.26
and oe-core branched with codenames, poky distro layer is called meta-yocto and it also has BSPs in same repo, if you think from their POV its very confusing for some one new who is trying to get some understanding of this all. may be we can do without some of these now a days. but thats discussion for another day :)

> 
> The original and unanswered question was "should oe-core continue to maintain GPLv2 recipes where upstream has moved to GPLv3 or should those recipes move to a standalone layer" with various implied questions:
> 
> - If the v2 recipes move to a separate layer, who own/maintains/tests it?

motivated enough to use OE some folks might come up but it won’t be same, at this time I know it gets more users for OE may be less developers but then look at patches to these components has come from users turned developers. We should also look into the case why glibc folded the secondary class architectures which were maintained in ports repository into glibc proper.

> - Should there be v2 recipes for every recipe that has moved to v3, or only (as is now) the "more-core" recipes (currently YP tests that core-image-base builds without GPLv3, nothing else more complicated)
> - Should meta-gplv2 only contain recipes from oe-core, or all layers?  If other layers decide to hold both v3 and v2 recipes (not that I'm aware any have), what makes oe-core special?

These are pertinent questions that I have raised earlier on thread that can cause more confusion to end user, but i think if we keep the check for choosing GPLv2 only packages in OE-Core and move these recipes to something like meta-legacy or something like that and not associate it with license name then we don’t have to worry about above questions.

> 
> I'm torn, Richard is torn.  Neither of those are useful to forming a decision.  Does anyone else have any *useful* feedback?

however it can be left in there if its not causing a lot of maintenance burden since it still serves a purpose downstream.

> 
> Ross

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20150811/7b5d9896/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20150811/7b5d9896/attachment-0002.sig>